library licenses (was: Re: Re: Re: [GE users] Issue seen in 6.2U5 : memory values reported bySGE too low compared to top output on linux systems)

wagoodman wgoodman at jcvi.org
Wed Aug 25 16:34:47 BST 2010


Hi all,

At my site we have a licensed SGE 6.2U5, I put in a service request to sun and I get the
same answer that everybody else is saying "it's fixed in release SGE 6.2U6". My only problem
is, we just completed an upgrade two weeks ago... I had to request a major outage. Is there 
a quick fix or patch for this. I mean, my boss is going to blame me for not researching and 
testing out new release (which I did thoroughly), but I guess like everyone else, I didn't notice 
it. Also does that bug just effect reporting only or does it break functionality?

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: fx [mailto:d.love at liverpool.ac.uk] 
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:32 AM
To: users at gridengine.sunsource.net
Subject: library licenses (was: Re: Re: Re: [GE users] Issue seen in 6.2U5 : memory values reported bySGE too low compared to top output on linux systems)

rayson <rayrayson at gmail.com> writes:

> qmake does not link against any SGE libraries - all it needs is to
> invoke qrsh.

Right, but note that there are problems elsewhere.  [I don't mean to
suggest that rayson et al don't understand, but it's already apparently
been missed, as below.]

Specifically you can't use libdrmaa with, for instance, GPL'd code that
doesn't have a suitable licence exception.  Thus the SGE DRMAA is
useless for a significant number of potential applications -- consider
building a qmake with it rather than using qrsh, if that's technically
feasible (I don't know).

This is a problem with at least one tarball on the gridengine site --
the Python DRMAA binding, which claims a straight GPL licence; likewise
the Perl binding, which isn't on sunsource.  I only realized this fairly
recently when looking at DRMAA, and I guess it's now too late to do
anything about it and make SGE DRMAA generally useful.  The OGE
situation is no better, of course.

Note that there was some of the licensing on some files made for the
Debian packaging -- see the copyright file on the Debian package, and
relevant posts on debian-legal (?).  I think that was never resolved in
the source.  Also note that the headers on the current files don't obey
the requirements of the licence, since they don't mention `the original
code', which I think Debian didn't pick up.

-- 
Dave Love
Advanced Research Computing, Computing Services, University of Liverpool
AKA fx at gnu.org

------------------------------------------------------
http://gridengine.sunsource.net/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=38&dsMessageId=276272

To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe at gridengine.sunsource.net].

------------------------------------------------------
http://gridengine.sunsource.net/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=38&dsMessageId=276836

To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe at gridengine.sunsource.net].



More information about the gridengine-users mailing list